Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Taipei Times Editorial Page on history: say what?

A vendor waits for customers

Lately the strange rightward shift in certain editorials of the Taipei Times has sent any number of people scurrying to their keyboards to ask me WTF is going on with those editorials. This week's piece was hard to classify....

The effort continues and only last week, Taiwan supporters were excitedly clamoring over the release of a declassified CIA document from 1949 which said that from a legal standpoint, Taiwan could not be considered to have been part of the ROC. All that is fine, but in the end, no amount of legal documents, historical findings, maps, obscure quotes or other materials will convince Beijing to abandon its longstanding claim that Taiwan is a renegade province of China that needs to be “reunited,” by force if necessary.

Does the Taipei Times really imagine that anyone who studies these matters thinks if they wave a document that Beijing will suddenly change its mind? Probably there is a nutcase or two who thinks that, but no one sober does. Who is the Taipei Times talking about here?

Actually, no one was excitedly clamoring, for I was on the discussion list where the document appeared in its wanderings around the web, that appearance being the one that triggered the article in the Taipei Times about the report "CIA report shows Taiwan concerns". Erudite list members quickly pointed out that the document was released in 1993. Hence, no clamor. Just a document of historical interest. This did not stop the Taipei Times from making the same point again in the next paragraph.

Beijing’s recent behavior with regard to its territorial claims in the South China Sea, or the even sillier contention made more than once during the past weeks in the Chinese Communist Party-controlled media that Okinawa, Japan, might also be part of Chinese territory, should be enough to drive home the reality that historical facts and international law will not influence Chinese thought.

So I'll make the the same point again: no one seriously believes Beijing will pay attention to international law. But the editorial goes on to repeat the same point a couple of more times, in case you missed it the first two times...

....Relying on prayers and entertaining fantasies about a Eureka document that will succeed in deflating Beijing’s claims where everything else has failed serves no purpose other than delaying an outcome that should not be inevitable.

....However, Taiwan should not kid itself — old maps and declassified missives are a waste of time, no matter how valid the cases they make.

....Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Russians, the French and others would have been foolish to sit and wait for the Nazis as they advanced across Europe armed only with legal documents and maps.

Yes, we should have a consensus on resisting China. But part of constructing that consensus is building a shared identity. And that identity has to have a past that presents a strong and true alternative to Beijing's false claims. That past must be plausibly legitimate. That's one of the key uses of history, and of documents like this.

Further, knowledge of the past is extremely useful in summoning help for the present and future..... One can imagine how the TT's position would play in reality:

Taiwan independencista: You should support Taiwan independence!American Shiao Ming: Why? The Chinese say Taiwan has been part of China for centuries.Taiwan independencista: Never mind that! We are looking to the future! We don't believe we are part of China!American Shiao Ming: Why not? Aren't you Chinese? Weren't you given back to China in 1945!Taiwan independencista: I don't know! Who cares!? Why is this history important?! What I think now is more important!American Shiao Ming: Ok, sure. Whatever.

The flaw in the Taipei Times' position is simple: China legitimates its position via appeals to history (among its many approaches) and it is necessary to know that history in order to respond to those claims. Moreover, since history legitimates, proper use of it can help others who might want to rally to Taiwan's side to support us. We are not just talking to Beijing here, but to the whole world, including uncaring and uncommitted Taiwanese at home. By legitimating our position through law and history, we define ourselves as different from the expansionists in Beijing who ignore law and history. Key!

The Taipei Times should take notice that it is common for people who delve deeply into the history of Taiwan to have very little support for annexing it to China, and for the political parties that advocate annexation. Instead of accusing people of searching for a magic bullet, perhaps the editorialist should make a better attempt to understand the uses, functions, and effects of historical knowledge.

One of the great victories of the KMT in shaping the Taiwan consciousness was getting the Taiwanese to care so little for their own history. Let's not ape that trend.

Foreign academic criticizes Hsinchu city government, it goes after his work permit. No chilling effect there! And note the reference to the unconstitutional, authoritarian, and evil spying program of the NSA. The Bush-Obama security state helps legitimate security states everywhere now. Way to leave the world a better place than you found it, American elites.

_______________________[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

17 comments:

Sean
said...

This piece was written by J. Michael Cole, a journalist of great knowledge on Taiwan matters, an internationally recognized Taiwan expert, he writes for the Diplomat and other renowned publication. I don't think you can match with him, honestly speaking.

Isn't it ironic that this piece of "news" wouldn't have even been news if the Taipei Times hadn't printed an article about it? And then they turn around and editorialize against the content of an article they published? Talk about a dog chasing its own tail...

Based on your quotes from the TT, I'm not sure I see where your disagreement is. You're both saying that it's fine to note that the historical documents show Taiwan is not part of China, and you're both in agreement that was really matters is the current situation, not some silly pieces of paper.

I didn't see anything in the quotes from the Taipei Times saying the historical documents shouldn't be used in arguments. They were just cautioning people not to put their hopes in those documents because the issue won't be settled by such documents.

We are not just talking to Beijing here, but to the whole world, including uncaring and uncommitted Taiwanese at home. By legitimating our position through law and history, we define ourselves as different from the expansionists in Beijing who ignore law and history. Key!

Good point! So far the best recount of history is from Roger Lin and his Taiwan Civil Government. You may think that this guy has some flaws but he surely lay out a clear and coherent History of Taiwan.

History is materials for narratives. What will define a national identity is narratives. KMT shamelessly forges a mythical Yellow Emperor and his descendents. It's so powerful that some WASP might even think they are included :-)

Check out

'Paradigm Series: Coming Posts with Taiwan in Search of a National Paradigm and More' by Jerome Keating, a counter attack to Yellow E.

It's good to be well-versed enough in your opponent's position to be able to undermine it, however one needs to avoid to temptation of being drawn into battle on his turf.

Specific 'legal' claims made by the PRC should be rebutted, if possible, but always with the note that such argument is beside the point. Taiwan's sovereignty comes from the inherent (NOT UN granted, simply inherent) right to self-determination, and from from the fact that Taiwan has been in fact independent of China for 100 of that past 115 years.

The intrigues and murkiness of international law are such that building your argument on them is building on an unsure foundation. It is risky because a fair reading of (unfair) international law may find that China has a better case than Taiwan. The more time you spend arguing international law, the more you give the appearance of legitimacy to international law, and the more you undermine Taiwan's stronger position that Taiwan is and should be independent regardless of international law.

Your point is a valid one. No one I know has been reacting to these documents in the way that TT disparages. The risk is that these documents will be too quickly discounted when in fact they are a valuable confirmation of what history tells us from many other sources. But editorial writers often use straw-man arguments to make their point. So perhaps we're expecting too much from the popular news media that seeks to keep readers engaged and interested.

The tone is what I object to. I agree with Michael's objection. The assault on the monstrous Sino-Borg should be on all fronts. They strike, spy, snare, sneak, and shit at all fronts of humanity principles and practices. Memory fabiracation, present situational manipulation, and future fantasy imagination are all their weapons. Sino-Borg's assault agents are everywhere in timespace continnum. So we shall guard against them in the same manner.

I agree with Readin that any case for Taiwan ought to be argued on moral rather than legal premises, but her claim that Taiwan's sovereignty comes from an "inherent" right to self-determination ought to be explained rather than simply asserted.

"One of the great victories of the KMT in shaping the Taiwan consciousness was getting the Taiwanese to care so little for their own history."

Yes, Michael. KMT is a successful sectarian group and the Taiwanese are its brainwashed followers.

I totally adhere to R. Lin's concept that Taiwan would have to first abide its legitimate ruler if it entertained hope of ever reaching an y internationally recognized legal status. But to that end its legitimate occupier would first have to show up on site.

The bane of Taihoku is that it has been turned into a chinaman zoo for would be sinologists when it should have become a field study ground for japonologist specialising in that southernmost of the five main islands of the Japanese archipelago.

I thought the Taipei Times editorial was spot on. The case for Taiwanese sovereignty should be based on the self-determination of the Taiwanese people, not on legalese new or old signed by however many great or small powers.

I am slightly baffled at how this could be a point of contention. There is something perverse about the document fetish among supporters of Taiwanese self-determination.

Let's say that in any year of the first half of the 20th century, all the existing powers of Asia and even whatever Taiwanese groups that existed were found to have signed a document saying that Taiwan will be ruled by the Chinese mainland from then until perpetuity. Can anyone who believes in democracy and freedom think that makes any difference at all to the question of Taiwan's sovereign status?

The document game, I believe, is a demonstration of the extent to which the 'conversation' about Taiwan is shaped by the authoritarian tendencies that did so much to perpetuate the Red and White Terrors in the first place.

Of course, history matters. It is no secret that Taiwan's political ties to mainland China have been weak to non-existent for the last 118 years. And, the only point at which they can said to have reconnected (i.e., shortly after WWII), was a time of oppression and massacre.

Neither China nor the 'international community' are waiting for any documents that would change one jot of the dynamic that governs relations between Taiwan and the rest of the world.

I wish a document could be found that says, oh, yeah, Taiwan is a province of China just so that we could get past the irrelevancy of the notion that those documents matter in this context.

I will take things a little further in saying that I believe that the document game is a way for supporters of Taiwanese independence to avoid the hard questions, to play the aggrieved party without actually having to do any original thinking or make any sacrifices to take control of their destiny. That is because everybody is pretty much okay with the status quo. The greens perhaps don't like it, but they are more interested in fighting over the spoils of the ROC than in creating a popular, apolitical movement that would bring the current reality to the attention of the world.

The greens are simply unable to articulate a meaningful position, despite being sole occupants of the moral high ground, and surely there is something perverse in their attempt to wave documents every time the question of Taiwanese independence or participation in international organizations such as the UN comes up. Granted that Taiwan will never have a Mandela or a Dalai Lama or a Gandhi, I still can't help but think that the key both to the independence of Taiwan and its survival in a neighborhood dominated by large and historically cutthroat powers is by reshaping the moral order of Asia as those great men did, not visiting the archives.

PS. The imaginary conversation between the independencista and the American is not very plausible in my opinion.

"Weren't you given back...?" Really?

If a Catalan said I should support independence from Spain, it would not occur to me to say, 'Haven't you been a part of Spain for X many centuries? Wasn't that formalized in the treaty of Y?' Most Americans would instinctively say, 'This Catalan apparently feels oppressed or underrepresented in some fashion. I wonder what's up', and move on from there. Catalan independencistas may or may not win my sympathy, but I think most Americans would turn to the moral question, since that is what our particular case for independence was based on.

I thought the Taipei Times editorial was spot on. The case for Taiwanese sovereignty should be based on the self-determination of the Taiwanese people, not on legalese new or old signed by however many great or small powers.

Part of that case is documentary in nature.

it would not occur to me to say, 'Haven't you been a part of Spain for X many centuries?

That's because Spain doesn't make that claim in the same way that China does. It is not an exotic Other like China with "5,000 years of history"

As for "document fetish" I must say your imagination is quite amazing. I've been around TI activists for twenty years now and have never met any like that. Can you supply a large number of names or other identities, so we can all know to whom this refers?

No typical American who took an interest in the Taiwanese question would respond in the way you suggested. Could you supply any names or identities of Americans who would?

There has been a constant back and forth about how Taiwan has been disposed in treaties, agreements, and understandings from the first half of the 20th century. They are always in the newspapers. I confess that I never took an interest in the writers' identities. They often seem to be academics.

But you can hear this type of argument in a simplified form among the hoi polloi, as well. 'Taiwan was never ruled by China, only the Manchus.' Whatever magical date or document is cited, it's anachronistic and irrelevant to the question of whether the Taiwanese have the right to declare independence or not. Or it is contextual at best.

No typical American who took an interest in the Taiwanese question would respond in the way you suggested. Could you supply any names or identities of Americans who would?

Stupid, Bart. American Shiao ming is fictional, he illustrates a point I am making about the uses of history. One you've totally evaded. On the other hand, you claimed the existence of a number so great it justifies an editorial on the topic.

There has been a constant back and forth about how Taiwan has been disposed in treaties, agreements, and understandings from the first half of the 20th century. They are always in the newspapers. I confess that I never took an interest in the writers' identities. They often seem to be academics.

So, you don't know anyone like this, and you can't think of any examples. I understand.

But you can hear this type of argument in a simplified form among the hoi polloi, as well. 'Taiwan was never ruled by China, only the Manchus.' Whatever magical date or document is cited, it's anachronistic and irrelevant to the question of whether the Taiwanese have the right to declare independence or not. Or it is contextual at best.

You're saying something almost intelligent here, Bart. Let's take a close look -- oh yeah, there's that word, right which exists in what kind of framework -- a legal framework, the kind described in -- whaddaya call them? Oh yeah, documents of a historical nature. The whole concept of presupposes historical documentation of that right, a chain of custody, etc.

I wonder why you can't see this.

Probably because your point refuses to concede the reality that China's claims are fronted by historical claims that are false and can be addressed by actual history, and because you consistently attempt to reduce the independence and identity issue to "the right of the Taiwanese want" as if words like "Taiwanese" and "right" exist without prior history, and because historical documents have multiple uses in the identity and independence debates. The editorial was stupid from top to bottom. Deal with it.

PS, if the TT wants to write about document fetish, it can write about the KMT and the Cairo Declaration and the Treaty of Taipei, which is infinitely worse than whatever some TIers are alleged to be doing. But I realize it is no fun to hack on a genuine problem...

HOT! HOT! HOT!

COMMENTS: May take a while. Google screwed up the old Comments functions in its most recent "upgrade" which really hurt the functionality and usability of Blogger, another trademark Google upgrade that made problems worse while adding more clicks to get anything done.

Photos on this blog are hosted by Flickr. I used to enthusiastically recommend Flickr but the new site changes have grievously impaired its usefulness. My current recommendation: find another photo host. My photos at Flickr. Just click on any photo to be taken to its Flickr page to view it in larger size.